Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Dmcdevit: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→"Problem users" and "productive editors": this may allay some fears |
|||
Line 125:
Several voters have taken exception to your use of the terms "problem users" and "productive editors" in your opening statement. I suspect some people are interpreting your comments to mean something you did not mean to imply, so I wonder if you could clarify by answering the following questions. Thanks, – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 17:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for the question, I am a little concerned by that impression by some of the voters. The sentence in question "''The Arbitration Committee's main role is to smooth out disturbances in the community by dealing with problem users''" may be ambiguous, but when I said "dealing with" it was in the meaning of "placing sanctions on" or something to that effect. This is not meant to say that I have any inclination to see someone as a problem, but that arbcom ''only'' puts sanctions on probem users. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 21:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* Would it be appropriate, in your mind, for an arbcom member to publicly refer to a specific user as a "problem user"?
**I have worked on and spoken openly of arbitration cases in the past, but I recognize the responsibility for discretion that an arbitrator has in such matters. Without being able to predict the future, I won't make a pledge how I will refer to users, but I don't find the characterization "problem user" a helpful one when applied to individuals, since it is not descriptive, merely provocative. It is sensible, when making descriptive comments to use language that can be backed up with evidence, like X pushes a POV, or edit wars. "Problem user" is not some catch phrase I'm fond of, just two words I stuck together that seemed to fit my purposes for the statement. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 21:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* Are you inclined to think of a user as a "problem user" because they appear before the arbcom?
**I said earlier up on this page "I don't see that "automatic decisions" have any place in ArbCom" and that is true here, too. There is an evidence subpage for a reason, and I have provided evidence in the past. Cases withut evidence flounder, it is essential. In fact, if I ever had such a prejudice against a given user, then I would recuse myself as is proper. It hardly needs to be pointed out, but arbitrators are the last people we want violating [[WP:AGF]], and I believe strongly in that principle. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 21:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
* What proportion of Wikipedia editors do you think are "problem users", what proportion are "productive editors", and what proportion are in the gray area inbetween?
**I have no idea. Vandals are definitively problem users. I am inclined to believe that nearly everyone here is a well-intentioned and productive editor. There's no set of editors I can classify as a problem, and that kind of judgment requires individual analysis of a case. Which is what arbcom does. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 21:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
==Punishment (a question from AndriyK)==
| |||